The action was taken under the premise of:
General restriction

11) Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.

I would like to appeal against this action and the finding of my incivility based on the following points:

1. My incivility was never explicitly stated by the administrator who imposed it despite a request to do so. Another administrator (Thatcher) simply suggesting the need for Dispute resolution, without considering that a 'request to move' is a form of dispute resolution.

2. Under some circumstances incivility is justified such as when the Wikipedia user is found to be using methods of argument during a discussion which are easily likened to abuse of logic, lying or propaganda, all of which contradict Wikipedia NPOV policy. The ruling is therefore largely the administrator's POV who may be unaware of the behaviour of the other party.

3. In order for the 'personal attack' to be personal, a person needs to be explicitly named. Since no such person was named in the cited evidence against me, the attack could only have been directed at the line of argument offered by the opposers of the 'proposal to move', which was in part lacking in supporting evidence, and therefore deceptive. In fact the proposition that I directed a personal attack contradicts my personal values that "one talks about ideas and not people"

4. If I am accused of assumptions of bad faith, then I submit that the action of the other party was in fact the precursor of the 'request for move' as a means of remedies in equity due to my inability to assume good faith given the action of renaming the article in the first place, which, without discussion, was tantamount to negation of good faith as per Wikipedia's policy that "Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism". In this case the points being attempted to be proven are that: a) the article is focused on places in the event name and not on the historical event itself, and b) that Romanian and European Union naming policy over-rides that of WP:UE, WP:MILMOS#NAME, and WP:ROR, for which I can find no evidence in Wikipedia policy.

5. That in any case, I could not be warned under the Digwuren enforcement as an "editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe" since the article is intended to be an NPOV description of of a military operation by an armed force which at one time could be claimed to have been present in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic. It is not a topic related to Eastern Europe despite being situated in Eastern Europe in the same way that all discussion of Architecture will inevitably include Eastern Europe. This would require similar enforcements to be enacted every time any editor chose to document operations by the Soviet Army in any of these global regions should anyone fund them controversial, or any topic that might include Eastern Europe, which is a large majority of Wikipedia content.

I look forward to my user name being cleared of these accusations.

Thank you -- mrg3105 mrg3105 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewers should refer to this AE thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Mrg3105. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • User has been blocked for 24 hours for incivility [1]. Thatcher 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In my opinion rightly so. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non- WP:UE, non- WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non- WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been a month of being criticised at the RfCs, a month and a half before that was spent criticising me at the case, and the actual block was back in September. Can we accept that I am sufficiently cautioned and throw out the case, which was accepted as a "test case", but actually worked out to a "torment the admin who's undergoing exams, money problems, and so on" for several months. Can we accept that I am sufficiently chastened by now, and let me get on with my life? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The case was not just about you. Some of the findings of fact were not about you. Why should those points be thrown out? And the best way to avoid criticism is to look more closely and consider which parts of the criticism are well-founded. If this whole thing ends up as "I was criticised and bullied" (the words you used back in November), then how can anyone see if you have learnt anything from this? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was accepted as a "test case", and, while I accept I did wrong, and think I know how and how to prevent the problem in future. However, that doesn't change that there were problems: Charles Matthews' evidence was unusually incivil; voting to desysop me was started before I presented evidence. FoF#9 was created from evidence that did not appear in the Evidence section, and thus I had doubly no chance to respond; and when I got upset over the phrasing, which was at the least misleading (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Request_for_comment_on_Finding_of_Fact_.239_.28Adam_Cuerden.29, I never - and still have never - gotten any sort of response from the Arbcom. Requests to wait until after my exams were ignored. I had asked for a wikibreak to come after the RfC several weeks ago, and even volunteered, if necessary, to give up my adminship during it. I have still had no response about it, nor has FT2, the arbcom member who said he'd sort it out.

In short, the case was so badly handled, that it's hard to see how it can be salvaged at this point without restarting the case and dragging everyone through Arbcom again, and, frankly, after the amount of feedback I had, I think we can accept that I know what I did wrong, and won't do it again.

As I see it, there are two options for continuing this case: #1: ignore that the RfC ever happened, and proceed with the voting as it stood. This would give a strong appearance that the RfC was done for appearance's sake only, particularly given none of the arbcom commented on the RfC.

The second option is pretty much to restart this case from scratch, using the RfC, new evidence that came up during it, etc, to make new FoF and such to vote on - which pretty much amounts to restarting the case.

Given that User:MatthewHoffman has been unblocked since November, and has not edited as of this date, I fail to see any actual benefit to him, me, or anyone else of continuing this case, and, given the amount of stress caused by these cases, large amounts of actual, real life harm. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points. But do you remember what UninvitedCompany said when the injunction was proposed? "I understand the desire to delay things but don't see why we need a provision for the case to self-destruct." If cases get thrown out because they become too long and messy, there will be every encouragement for people in future to actively try and drag things out and protest loudly at various points. As for MatthewHoffman - try and put yourself in his shoes. Would you edit using that account again after all that has happened? Carcharoth ( talk) 01:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but it does mean the proposals for annotating the block log, etc, are probably unnecessary - so long as he's not an indefblocked user, there's not going to be people blocking him for being a sock of an indefblocked user. Now, that said, while simply dragging the case on may not be a reason to drop it, it is hard to deny this case was very badly handled, and I would appreciate some recognition from the Arbcom that their poor handling of it caused me, who was very willing to learn from it. There are other problems which I think you know about, but which are private. However, there are so many problems that at this point, this whole case seems to have turned into something of a mistrial. I am willing to undergo the process of admin recall, if there's enough people who want that, but the communications issues - despite many emails, talk page discussions, and communications with Arbcom members, I have gotten absolutely NO significant response from them beyon d the proposed decision page, and a promise by one of the new admins that voting will not begin until after evidence is provided in future cases.

In short, after 3 months of begging the arbcom to respond to me, through several media (IRC, talk pages, e-mail, e-mails to JIMBO) without any luck, I think that the arbcom should accept that they have messed up heir handling of this case so badly that they should dismiss it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, I think there's been something of a mistrial Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's meant to be arbitration, not a trial (or mistrial). Mis-arbitrated? But anyway, I'm going to back off from this one, other than to agree that is is indeed time for the case to be brought to a close soon. It is for the arbitrators to respond to you though, and I hope they do respond to your questions. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've e-mailed them again, and will search out that Admin recall thingie. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the result, isn't it time to resume some form of action on this case, whether dismissing or getting back to voting? The 30 days have passed, and I can't see why we're leaving this hanging like this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

==== Request for block log annotation (Whig) 8uut Regardless of whatever disposition the ArbCom would like to make of the Matthew Hoffman case, I would request an annotation to my block log. Since Adam declines to do this himself, I would ask the ArbCom to review his blocks of my account. — Whig ( talk) 00:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your request will be considered by the committee, but I think we should make it clear that annotating a user's block log to indicate that the Arbitration Committee finds that a block was unjustified is an unusual remedy and is going to be reserved for extreme situations. This remedy was employed, for example, in a recent case where the blocking administrator offered no explanation for a block at the time it was imposed, the admin claimed not even to remember the block when it was questioned later, and circumstances justified the conclusion that the block may have been inspired by an unrelated dispute on another website and thus was grossly out of order. I am not suggesting that a judgment has been reached on whether this remedy is available to Whig or for that matter to MatthewHoffman (in fact, I am presently inactive on this case, which originated last year, before I and the other new arbitrators joined the committee). But I would not want to leave the impression that the committee is in a position to review every questioned block, even after it has expired, in the absence of extreme or unusual circumstances. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to the blocks in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note my responses and especially those of Wanderer57. — Whig ( talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance the wording of the "discretionary sanctions" remedy could be tweaked to allow uninvolved admins to place a specific article (or closely related set of articles, if necessary), on article probation? I believe this would help, given the current thread at WP:AE and attendant squabbling at Jewish lobby. I suppose you could argue that article probation here might be redundant (seeing as all Arab-Israeli articles are kind of on article probation anyway) but it helps as a solution on especially problematic articles - the tag at the top lets people know there is a long-term issue. Furthermore, it means the article as a whole can be monitored and you don't have to pick through contributions elsewhere if deciding when to topic-ban. Best, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessary Moreschi. If there's problematic editing on the page, article ban the participants on the page who are taking part in the problematic behaviour. If there's problems on numerous pages with certain editors, topic ban them. If they carry on editing these pages then should be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The sanctions are so broadly written that I think they allow for pretty much everything. I will probably place all editors on Jewish Lobby on 1RR per week for that article pending an attempt to more deeply analyze the problem. The sanctions are written against "any editor" not "any article," but articles don't write themselves, and I'm pretty sure that "any editor" includes "all editors of article X". Thatcher 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was trying to say. The ability to place a specific article on 1RR (and put in extra sanctions against uncooperative editing etc) is what's needed in some cases, because some articles are so darn controversial it's just natural to edit-war (the poor darlings can't help themselves). But Thatcher's work-around is rather neat, and will serve equally well. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}

Tariqabjotu has brought to my attention, in connection with a different matter altogether, an apparent edit war involving the same editors at New antisemitism. It's evidently escalated well beyond the issues at Jewish lobby, to the point of the article having being protected. I'm not involved in any way with either article and not really up to date on what has been going on, but maybe one of you guys could take a look. Now my request for clarification: would such an article be covered by this arbitration in the first place? I'm not certain how broadly the link with the Palestine-Israeli conflict is going to be interpreted, though looking at the article's content it does seem to be indirectly related to that conflict (which is mentioned at various points). Does an article have to be about Palestine-Israel, or is it sufficient that it should have some sort of non-trivial link to the conflict? -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." In my view a broad interpretation does include New antisemitism. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is plenty wide to cover about anything, clearly the intent of the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The remedies were deliberately wide, to indicate in a way, simply, that we feel that

1. Administrators on this area may need to use their judgement and adminship to bring the edit war (and warriors, and some editors who need to modify their conduct) back within acceptable limits, and
2. The edit war has exhausted patience, and we are therefore now inclined to give uninvolved administrators wide ranging scope to achieve that end (as described in the decision).

Note that a stricter application of "drawing a line on unproductive behavior" is not the same as "anything an admin does will be okay". However a user who cannot or will not take note of the need to edit productively and appropriately in their conduct (" WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), has now basically got only two choices in this arena: voluntarily do not edit there, or be prevented from editing in an unhelpful manner, by admin action. What counts as "unproductive" or "inappropriate" is pretty much "any action that contradicts high quality collaborative creation of a neutral encyclopedia article for readers".

Bottom line: the encyclopedic community is not expected to endorse some areas being a perrenial edit war, for any reason, and the belief that somehow they should, is misplaced. Disputes are fine provided they are carried out appropriately, which includes non-disruption, listening to uninvolved administrators, and editors actively and genuinely working to achieve resolution via NPOV.

An approximate summary of my own personal thoughts. If in doubt the remedy wording overrides any comment I might make. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these very informative comments. I hope one of the clerks will archive this thread somewhere (maybe on the arbitration page?). -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, main case talk page, after it's stale for a couple more days (in case any other Arbs wish to comment) Thatcher 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What is going on at Talk:Homeopathy is disgraceful. The pro-homeopathy editors are running amok, inventing new rules, bringing in friendly administrators to ban people for viewpoint-related reasons, and placing "incivility" warnings on the talk pages of anyone who tries to speak up for reason and proper Wikipedia procedure. They have already gotten one of their pocket admins to pre-emptively warn known pro-science editors that they have lovely Wikipedia accounts and it would be a shame if anything happened to them. Said admin has openly admitted that he has placed official warnings on the pages of people who have not yet broken any rules, because he thinks they MIGHT break rules in the future! While the pro-science people are being bullied off the page by an obsessively dedicated gang of fanatics, the anti-science people use personal attacks, threats, false accusations that the pro-science people are spammers or sock puppets, mocking of the citation policies, and the continual attempt to turn the talk page into a discussion of the article's subject, and instead of getting discipline, they get Barnstars and guardian angel admins who undo any penalties. The page is an absolute mess as a result. Someone needs to intervene. Randy Blackamoor ( talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple comment from someone who has stayed out of that mess: The "anti-homeopathy" editors could be perceived of doing the same thing prior to the probation. Neither side is correct in that course of action. A solid balance needs to be achieved that includes both sides of the issue. spryde | talk 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the problem is that by saying "neither side is correct" and "everyone needs to compromise," you cede the day to the pro-homeopathy editors. They can wait forever until all their opponents are banned, and act with impunity because friendly admins will unquestionably and immediately reverse their own bannings and other punishments (see Anthon01's talk page for an example). There can be no compromise when one side is intimidated into never talking! Randy Blackamoor ( talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Bearian ( talk · contribs) and his brief block of Anthon01 ( talk · contribs), I can say with near-certainty that Bearian is a good admin, and I've never seen any indication that he's a closet homeopathy-POV-pusher or "anti-science". I think he's just an admin who made a block, then felt he'd made a mistake and tried to correct it. Look, there are lots of eyes on the article now. The mainstream view is not going to be erased, and it's not going to turn into an unduly weighted promotional piece. Won't happen. You're shooting yourself in the foot by fulminating about a conspiracy; it just makes it easier for people to dismiss your actual content arguments or place them on the same footing as those of the small handful of pro-homeopathy editors. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong with following WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and so on and maintaining wikipedia policies and rules on these pages?-- Filll ( talk) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue seems to be that there is a cadre of people who have declared that they have no intention of following those policies, and it's impossible to do anything about them or their edits. Randy Blackamoor ( talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if this is the case, that admins should take note of this and act accordingly.-- Filll ( talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing problem with articles covering fringe scientific topics. As seen in the above case request, fringe articles are clearly targeted by a determined group of editors interested in inflating the legitimacy of the topics and de-weighting the scientific or evidence-based view. It is part of the wikipedia way of doing things that neither admins, nor arbcom, can make content rulings. Admins could be given more advanced tools for dealing with disruption, though.

Two prior cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, dealt with narrow topics and resulted in bans for a few single-purpose editors and "cautions" to ScienceApologist. As a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, Martinphi is placed on probation and ScienceApologist on civility parole, but these remedies do not begin to address the broad range of disruptive behavior and continual disruption at multiple articles. There have been multiple complaints filed against ScienceApologist, mostly groundless or incredibly minor, by editors seemingly more interested in getting rid of him than editing collaboratively, and ScienceApologist has unfortunately taken the bait more than once and responded in an inappropriate manner. There has also been edit warring on multiple articles, and at least two three disputed articles are currently protected.

I believe that a broad article probation covering the entire topic is needed to give admins the tools to deal with this long-running battle. I propose giving admins discretion to ban individual editors from pages they edit disruptively, for the short or long term, enforceable by blocking, and/or to place editors on revert limitation. Because the three previous cases have resulted in only probation for one editor and civility parole for a second, out of a large group of interested editors, has not given administrators an effective means of dealing with this long-term problem area. Thatcher 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please propose specific language for a motion that potentially affected editors and the committee can review. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to use the ultra-broad general sanctions imposed at Israel-Palestine, but 1RR and page bans are needed to impose some sort of order here. Thatcher 00:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

May I comment here? Anthon01 ( talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, general discussion is permitted. Thatcher 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments here are encouraged. To be most helpful, they should deal with how problems on these articles can be minimized going forward so that accurate, NPOV articles will be written and a harmonious editing environment maintained. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all recognize that Homeopathy is a controversial science, but pseudoscience is a pejorative that seems to be part of the problem here. Because what we need to move forward is an environment where editors treat one another with respect and let the sources speak for us in the article space. — Whig ( talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: If the definition of Pseudoscience applies to Homeopathy, then WP:SPADE. This type of useage is not inappropriately pejorative. (See also List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts) -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition does not fit in my opinion, but without bringing content issues here, that list is clearly NPOV disputed, and the ArbCom has spoken on this issue before. By their definitions, I believe Homeopathy qualifies as an alternative theoretical formulation, but certainly not obvious pseudoscience. — Whig ( talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's a problem. Thatcher 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more conservative when stating what "we can all recognize" or agree upon. I certainly don't agree that Homeopathy is not pseudoscience (it is rightly included in Category:Pseudoscience), nor do I agree that the term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative - and apparently neither does the Arbitration Committee. Dlabtot ( talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what I said, I think we can all agree that it is controversial. — Whig ( talk) 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to use the ultra-broad general sanctions imposed at Israel-Palestine - Thatcher, what are those sanctions? Perhaps some of them would be appropriate here. Fwiw, I generally support your motion. Dlabtot ( talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, here is the link to the Palestine-Israel sanctions. Thatcher 12:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thatcher, if you read past the rhethoric and look at the actual page disruptions, especially the ones that lead to a page being locked, you'll find that only one or two editors cause it while everyone else is participating on the talk page, acting civily and with respect for each other, trying to reach consensus despite individual differences in viewpoint. There really are only a handful of editors (less than five) who don't care about that process and just want their way, wiki-process be damned. The rhetoric you read from them centers around their view that the wiki-process of trying to develop consensus needs to be changed because they feel it is broken, when surprisingly this system seems to work for everyone else but them. The system isn't broke, just some editors don't care about it. Check the logs on the two articles you used as examples and see who caused the pages to be locked, and why. In both cases it's because they (admittedly) didn't care about the consensus-building process. They're the same ones that are saying massive reform needs to take place. While they're busy disrupting pages and saying Wikipedia is broken, everyone else is on the talk page trying to address actual problems. Please don't confuse their view as a correct assessment of the problem when they're the ones that are acting like WP:MASTADONS. Everyone else seems to be able to get along just fine. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know to whom you are referring and perhaps it is best if you don't name names. Maybe. The point is that aside from a few single purpose accounts that have been banned for significant problems (Like User:Richard Malter and User:Asmodeus), three arbitration cases have not either resolved the problems of these articles or given admins tools to resolve them. Unless you can convince the Arbitrators to open a case against the 4 or 5 specific editors you are thinking of, the ability to levy page bans and 1RR limitation should allow admins to get these disputes under control. And if you are correct, then only those 4 or 5 editors will be affected. Thatcher 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would never dream of filing an arbitration case against the 4 or 5 mastadon editors who are actually disruptive, even if I wanted to, when vexatious complaints are considered part of the problem and any admin can ban me for it. As I'm sure you know, misreadings and misinterpretations are common at Wikipedia. I was just pointing out that there are far more editors willing to work together on these articles than those who don't, and that the handful of mastadons are the real problem. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The range of articles covered by Thatcher's proposal is remarkably broad. Of course, I've often agitated for something similar, so I can't argue with it. I'd only say that admin discretion is paramount: these articles are frequented by single-purpose agenda-driven accounts which edit-war, edit tendentiously, etc. These sanctions should not hit editors who have to deal with such accounts, but they run the risk of being used in such a manner. That said, provided there's some standard recourse for review of sanctions (via WP:AN/I and/or ArbCom), I would find myself hard-pressed to disagree with Thatcher on this. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • Odd you mention that, because it's exactly what led to this whole flareup. I can't mention names for fear of being sanctioned, but one editor that is a self-admitted agenda-driven editor had sanctions placed against him after two arbitrations where he was found to be consistently uncivil. He calls some people some names, someone complains, and the editor gets blocked. A few days after he is unblocked he edit wars against RfC consensus, someone complains, he gets blocked again, and two articles get locked down because of his massive edits that resulted in edit warring. A few days after that he is uncivil again and gets blocked again. In the wake of all this, a bunch of supporting editors say he's being "provoked" (though no one talked to him before the edits) and say that none of this is actually his fault but rather vexatious litigation. These editors are all riled up and calling for better tools to stop editors from "picking on him" (some of these people are admins). Look, I usually get along with the editor, and don't have a problem with him except when he's gone all angry mastadon, but sometimes we do disagree. How am I not supposed to be afraid of admins running around with banning powers on anyone they feel is disruptive?, some of whom clearly want to "avenge" him. It's just one editor who started this whole thing, while acting like your typical, angry, agenda-driven editor. Everyone else was mostly getting along. (Note: I didn't mention names and tried to be as civil as I could and still explain the situation the way it happened; please don't ban me). -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why make the pretense of not naming names when you've done all but that? Although he cannot respond here due to his block, I've notified the ostensibly innominate user. Please, if a discussion like this ever comes up about me (even if not by name) at a place like this, extend me the same courtesy. Ante lan ^talk 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had thought to I would have, but it's not like he can be sanctioned for anything I'm saying. He hasn't done anything new. My point is that these are broad ranging sanctions that could be misused, especially considering the exact circumstances involved that we're apparently not supposed to talk about because it's considered picking on someone. I don't understand any of this, quite frankly, because it focuses on possible future disruptions from a broad range of editors, when there's logs that show the locus of the dispute already in a small handful of editors. The locus is in editors who see Wikipedia as a battleground, not normal editors who get along and participate in normal content disputes. He knows how I feel about it, that I don't want him sanctioned further, and that I'd just like to see him stop being contentious. I'll send him a note. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, if arbitration members feel it is a necessary addition to the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case to impose sanctions on a broad number of editors to prevent disruption, it's not that bad of a proposal. The current wording needs to drop the " vexatious litigation" part in a bad way though, because that's the part that is going to cause even more headaches as it's too open to interpretation. The proposal is effectively saying the ArbCom is tired of hearing about disruptions on these articles and is going to empower admins to deal with it by providing blocking tools. However, no one actually involved in the dispute is allowed to ask for help in resolving the situation because it may be interpreted as "solely to harass or subdue an adversary", in which case you'll be blocked too. Instead the only way to resolve the dispute is to hope that an uninvolved administrator happens upon the dispute by chance, reads through all the discussions, understands what's going on, and sides with you. Otherwise, you could get blocked just for telling the administrator that a disruptive editor made two reverts instead of one, or that someone called you a name. It happens. Busy admins don't always know what's going on and can interpret your good faith complaint in a bad way. I personally don't think that editors who try to work well with others, and don't see Wikipedia as a battleground, should be sanctioned and limited in what they can do here, but that's just my take on the subject. I am fully convinced, though, that imposing restrictions on what someone can complain about is just going to lead to more headaches. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 11:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• So then, do you think that there should be no sanction for vexatious litigation? That someone should be able to bring repeated frivolous actions until they wear down their opposite number? Raymond Arritt ( talk) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On one hand people are saying there's serious problems in these articles that to led to massive disruptions, and that editors should reign themselves in and follow normal dispute resolution processes. Then they say complaining is frivilous. The two views aren't compatible. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are compatible. Nobody is saying that complaining is frivolous. Frivolous complaints are frivolous. If someone is both litigious and can't tell the difference between frivolous and serious problems, they will quickly discover the difference. This isn't all that different from Wikipedia under normal conditions. Ante lan ^talk 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied below. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented) If I may, here are two diffs the underscore the problem we are having with moving forward on many of these pages. [10] [11] I am not certain that admin tools alone will solve this problem. Regardless of the merits, I suspect admins, in good faith, could be found who would support both sides of these discussions. There are also admins, who in good faith, believe that discouraging "minority or fringe views" are more important than civility. Because of that, I am concern about the misuse of additional tools against editors who support the inclusion of RS/V minority views on fringe topics. Anthon01 ( talk) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a valid point - it illustrates the fact that the Quackwatch article is being disrupted, as it has been for years, by voceferous opponents of mainstream medicine and Stephen Barrett, and that this is winding up those who are here to write an encyclopaedia rather than serve an agenda. So much so that several people believe you, Anthon01, to be Anthony Zaffuto, and thus almost certainly an unacceptable party on that page per the restrictions and ban on Ilena Rosenthal. Guy ( Help!) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have made my point exactly. Here is an admin who has it in for me. IMO, he has it in for me because is certain situations I have opposed SA. It is probable that in most situations I would agree with SA. However in these cases it isn't so. Like SAs current attempt to purge wikipedia of most mention of homeopathy. Guy has admitted himself he has a prejudice against non-mainstream writers. What do I do about that? I see pattern with your accusations. They are baseless and diffless. Why don't you prove it! When are going to stop your baseless and diffless accusations? Anthon01 ( talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the content or merits, Guy is baselessly accusing and attacking me personally. Is there a remedy for admin abuse? Anthon01 ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made a claim. Who are the several people? Isn't there a policy against revealing personal information "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: ... * disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). Where do I address this issue? Anthon01 ( talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume Guy was referring to this discussion of you on the Administrator's noticeboard, but Guy can correct me if I'm wrong. Ante lan ^talk 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two questions here: (1) How can you reliably distinguish single-purpose and argumentative-but-new editors from new editors? To be frank, I don't trust the judgment of some administrators involved in this area when they label some editors as SPAs and trolls. (2) Under these sort of restrictions, what would have happened to User:MatthewHoffman? Would he have been indefinitely blocked? Should indefinite blocks be handed out as liberally as they are? (I see the provision here says that the blocks should be escalating - a point I wholeheartedly agree with). OK, that was more than two questions, but I don't want to see editors who participate constructively on talk pages banned merely because they argue for the wrong weight in an article. They can be wrong without being disruptive. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the committee finds the inclusion of "vexatious litigation" to be a problem they can remove it. As anyone can see from the recent discussion of Martinphi at WP:AE, while I agree that Martinphi's current probation could allow him to be banned from pages like RFC and RFAR for making disruptive complaints, I would be very reluctant to actually do so. In response to Carcharoth, probations are usually enforced incrementally. If this expanded authority were passed, I would unprotect Homeopathy and WTBDWK and place all editors on 1 revert per week limit, while encouraging talk page discussion. The next step would be bans from the article while continuing to allow use of the talk page. Actual bans from talk space are very rare, even under Arbitration, and should obviously be used with caution. In the case of MatthewHoffman, if he was found to be disruptive, the sanction would call for an article ban, not a total ban, and he could appeal as indicated. Thatcher 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Are there restrictions on what other admins can do and how this interacts with other processes? For instance, what is admins disgreed on what to do and one of them carried out an indefinite block for reasons related to that article, or if a community discussion based on behaviour at that article ended up with a complete ban of a particular editor? Carcharoth ( talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the terms of the remedy, a user would have to have been banned from some articles and/or violated a 1RR limit and been blocked at least 5 times before we started talking about an indefinite ban under the remedy. Arbitration remedies do not supersede ordinary admin action but are meant to give admins more tools; they do not immunize the editor from ordinary and normal discretionary actions. Suppose an editor was placed on 1RR for all pseudoscience articles, and later edit wars on an unrelated article; he could blocked for edit warring with or without violating 3RR at any admin's discretion like any other editor can be. Likewise the community can discuss and implement a community ban for someone even without that editor having reached his sixth blocking offense under the remedy, such discussion to be subject to the usual rules for such things. Thatcher 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support wholeheartedly these new restrictions. I think we have been too accommodating so far and that has not resolved much. These articles can and should be able to achieve NPOV and stability if the opposing parties would allow/encourage wider participation. I attempted offer help at the Quackwatch article and some other articles, but iy is extremely tedious and after a while whatever gains are made, are lost again in the never ending disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the ""vexatious litigation" item, though. Users need to have a way to alert admins and others without the fear that if they do, they will get dinged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your (and Nealparr's) concern. But the history of the present case shows that vexatious litigation has been an ongoing problem with these users. I'd rather leave this in and have it be applied with the same judgment and common sense we must use in any other administrative provision. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing problem? Let's look at that. Vexatious litigation is a "frivilous" complaint meant solely to remove an opponent, and here that's being defined as a disruption worthy of blocking. That's odd, because the whole purpose of the arbitration committee, and the arbitration enforcement page, is for people to come and complain about their opponent civily and seek remedy, presumably to have that opponent sanctioned for their actions. Again, calling that frivilous is incompatible with also treating dispute resolution seriously. This proposal criminalizes normal dispute resolution processes, with the possibility of blocking, and instead leaves the interpretation of what's frivilous up to any random admin. I have a problem with that. Namely because I was the one who pointed out that ScienceApologist has a history of being incivil in this very arbitration. I posted diffs stating that he was warned for incivility before, and then posted diffs showing that he continued doing so. In the arbitration I was accused by other editors, I think even an admin, of doing all of that just to support Martinphi. By this definition and remedy, apparently I was being frivilous and should be blocked because at least one admin thought I was frivilous. What common sense is there in that? The dispute resolution process is supposed to be about showing evidence of problems in opponents. It's probably for that reason that vexation litigation isn't in WP:DE, WP:DR, WP:HARASS or any other guideline that I'm aware of. When you have what you feel is a legitimate complaint you're supposed to take it to an authority who can help you. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the vexatious litigation clause were left in, it would be subject to the same admin discretion as the other remedies, plus could be appealable. Plus. if someone who had cried wolf too many times then had a legit complaint, he could ask and admin to review it and, if legit, the admin could temporarily lift the restriction. I'd rather not have to write that level of detail into a remedy that should be interpretable with common sense, but maybe it should be specified. Eh. Thatcher 19:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably help if you established a basis for including it first before adding detail on how to interpret it. So far I've only seen people file complaints for what they believe are legitimate complaints. It's not been established that any complaint has been raised in bad faith. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand it's hard to keep up with everything, but for what it's worth, several notices have been filed here, at ArbEnforcement, on the Admin Noticeboard, and elsewhere. I think there's a reasonable basis for this vexatious litigation element, and I'd be willing to go through the effort of compiling links to different filings if you haven't seen them. That said, I am OK with whatever, if anything, the Arbitrators decide. Ante lan ^talk 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A list doesn't demonstrate bad faith is my point. All the filings against ScienceApologist could be in the list, his filings against Martinphi could be as well, it could include filings that I'm not aware of, and the list would still not demonstrate that the intent was anything other than to resolve what they felt was legitimate disruptive editing. Filing complaints is not bad faith, nor is it disruptive (as this proposal suggests) especially when everywhere you turn it's what's encouraged instead of being disruptive. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "vexatious litigation" a self-correcting problem? Because anyone who brings (for example) a request for arbitration, becomes subject to that arbitration... I'd also like to note that this whole matter of "vexatious litigation" really seems to be a veiled reference to Martinphi's request above - which is in its essence, no different from the one we are commenting on here, except that it was brought by an involved party, and was therefore couched in more one-sided terms. Dlabtot ( talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the built-in self-correcting mechanism, don't admin already have tools to deal with vexing complaints? Anthon01 ( talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors can show us something which they considered to be vexatious litigation against ScienceApologist or Martinphi and explained to us exactly why they feel this way. Right now, I don't know how admins could draw the line if we as a community don't identify exactly where that line lies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. We weren't born yesterday. This was pointed out in the latest of many postings to the ArbCom enforcement page, and you were involved in that discussion. This situation is characterised by entrenched positions. There are more editors pushing the pseudo / fringe POV on most of those articles, and the pro-mainstream POV is a lot closer to NPOV. No attempt has been made by either party to work with the other, and there is a constant attempt by the pseudo and fringe side to continually redraw a new average between the current article content and their POV, a creeping fallacy of false middle. The repeated postings to the arbcom enforcement page are as close to harassment as makes no difference, and it needs to stop. Guy ( Help!) 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That didn't even come near to answering my question. What I am looking for is an example of what editors considered to be vexatious litigation against ScienceApologist or Martinphi and an explanation. What I am not looking for is hostility. You talk about parties coming together to work, but all I see to get from you is grief. All the time. Again, all I was asking for is an example and an explanation. Just provide a link and a rationale. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your inability to see the problem speaks volumes. Guy ( Help!) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And your hostility speaks tomes. All I am asking for is a simple example so I know what is meant by vexatious litigation. Again, all I am getting is grief from you. Please check your attitude. Now then, you say that you dealt with "vexatious litigation" recently in an ArbCom enforcement in which I was involved. Can you please point me to it because I don't recall such a thing? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I am hostile to people who are trying to leverage an ArbCom finding into a ban on one of the few people on this project with the determination and knowledge to resist the blatant abuse perpetrated by fans of the paranormal. In fact, if it were left to me, I would simply ban such people from all articles on these topics, as they consistently show a complete inability to follow policy. SA is more patient than that. But he can still be provoked, and the repeated vexatious abuse of process against him is one of the ways he is being provoked. Solution: stop doing it, and start working with him and throwing your weight behind policy. Unless you, too, are unable to resist the temptation to rewrite articles in the pretence that supposed paranormal powers have any kind of objective reality. You could start by helping us rid the project of Ilena's meatpuppet Anthon01, whose actions on and around Quackwatch are in clear defiance of the ban on Ilena and whose tendentious editing is becoming increasingly blatant. Guy ( Help!) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite telling when he receives awards and is encouraged and enabled in his disruptive behavior, spamming pages, tendentitious argumentation, etc.-- Filll ( talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should take a moment of reflection here - there are people who are compensated to cast doubt on modern science - they are professional PR individuals. There are no individuals compensated to set the record straight - those people are required to be volunteers who love knowledge. This is a real and substantial problem, and it resonates throughout this project. The difference between the two is obvious and readily transparent. PouponOnToast ( talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As a pure volunteer myself, it could easily be viewed in the opposite way, with a strong financial interest of pharmaceutical interests versus alternative medicine practices that rely on no patented methods. I think there are a wide mix of editors from every perspective, and assuming good faith is the best policy. — Whig ( talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Nick ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Bluemarine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Matt Sanchez)

Statement by Nick

Matt Sanchez was recently banned for a period of one year, however he was today (06 Feb 2008) caught editing whilst using a self identifying sockpuppet, apparently with the express purpose of dealing with the article we hold on him, and in particular, a photo which could facilitate identity theft, according to Matt.

Blocking the account and saying the user is banned doesn't make this problem go away however, Wikipedia has an article on the editor in question and it must comply with all the policies that are applicable to the page, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. It is not unreasonable for this user to expect that he can communicate with Wikipedia and ensure that the article is compliant with our policies.

In an ideal world, such communication would be through the m:OTRS system, however there are numerous backlogs and even in an ideal world, OTRS often takes time to deal with tickets, so problems often go unresolved for a few hours. This being the case, there really needs to be an appropriate clause in Matt's ban here which permits him to comment on the article on-wiki, in order that any changes can be made, as necessary. The article in question is reasonably popular, with around 200 edits last month (January), and it's an article that does tend to require protection occasionally, there are edit wars over the article and it does tend to stray from complying with our policies on occasion.

I'm hoping that the Committee will look at permitting Matt the ability to edit, perhaps just his talk page, and we could then transclude that onto a subpage of the article's talk page, in order that his concerns can be addressed and acted upon if necessary. Nick ( talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(Following comment by Thatcher):

I know normally OTRS would be the way to go, and I've asked that in future he's nudged towards us, but there's pretty big backlogs at the moment we're trying to deal with, it could be a while before we get to his message, he knows how to edit Wikipedia, surely we can ask that he raises concerns on-wiki so that they may be addressed. I'm not talking about genuine editing privileges, simply the ability to comment on his own biography as necessary. Nick ( talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wjhonson

I just want to point out, as if we don't all know, that Matt has plenty of blogspace and several private emails in case he wants to comment on his article. Wjhonson ( talk) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(Following comment by Sam Blacketer):
We also don't know who that is, anyone could have registered that username. Regardless of the provocation, Sanchez' behavior was pretty foul, and while rehabilitation is not impossible, it is certainly too soon. It will be important to demonstrate (for example) that he can work civilly and productively with the OTRS volunteers. Thatcher 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay*Jay ( talk · contribs) has started a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#BLP_concerns_and_ArbCom-banned_editors. As far as I know, the Bluemarine account is compromised/hacked/doing-very-strange-things, so unprotecting that talk page is not useful until that has been addressed. John Vandenberg ( talk) 10:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

The arbitration case has only just closed and I think it is a bit too soon to go changing the finding. Matt Sanchez had his editing privileges withdrawn because he misused them in attacking other users, and there is no indication so far that he has undergone an epiphany. In any case, of his three known accounts, only one has its talk page protected, so he is able to use the others to communicate. With OTRS, the simpler factual corrections are normally the quickest to be made. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

List of any users involved or affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Dmcdevit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• DreamGuy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Dmcdevit

Enforcing the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 as well as having any idea when DreamGuy is editing and who he is, which is important in light of his past behavior, is becoming increasingly difficult because of his decision to edit anonymously much of the time. As CheckUser, this puts me in an awkward situation because I don't want to have to be the one to carry out all the enforcement for DreamGuy, but at the same time, I don't want to have to out someone's IP unless there had actually been a violation (which another admin should decide, but which would be a waste of time if it's not him...). I would ask that ArbCom pass a motion requiring him to edit using only his DreamGuy account. Thanks. (See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, [12], Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2#Elonka.27s_DreamGuy_report, etc. for evidence of the issue.) Dmcdevit· t 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

If Dmcdevit feels it has come to that, then I am lifting my prior objections. DG is free to present his case, however. I will drop him a note. El_C 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(In response to DreamGuy's post):
Yes, it's a concern that Elonka has still failed to cite the diffs promised, and that continues to reflect poorly on her. Still, I notice you often don't use edit summaries; why not always use edit summaries, and check after every edit to see if you were logged in or not, if not, add another minor edit and sign it as DG in the edit summary. Simple enough, no? El_C 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I've never made an edit while anonymous that wasn't obviously me. It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who. The simple answer when people continuously file check user claims is to tell them to stop wasting your time with bogus reports. You asked them to point out some alleged wrongdoing that would justify a checkuser, they refused to do so, instead assuming bad faith. I can't guarantee that I will always be signed on, but I can guarantee that I will never deny it's me when it isso there can be no question of any alleged deception. If Wikipedia can come up with a way to make it so I get automatically signed in even if my cookie runs out or the ISP switches my IP address, fine, but I think it's ridiculous and impractical to insist I be signed on when no good reason is given for it. It's just people desperate to come up with anything they can as an alleged sign of wrongdoing. But a better way to solve this is to tell people falsely filing sockpuppet accusations to knock it off. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack1956

Hi, Some days ago I requested an RfCU on Dreamguy as I suspected that he was using a sockpuppet to edit again after having been warned previously on several occasions not to (see here [13]). Indeed, because of his refusal to log on when editing he was blocked for 72 hours [14]. It is my belief that Dreamguy is using an anon IP to edit again, hence my RfCU. The Checkuser request seems to have stalled. Can an admin take a look at my request please? My concern is that Dreamguy has edited the same articles (eg Jack the Ripper and The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91),etc) using several anon accounts, all of them supporting edits made by Dreamguy and/or each other, giving the appearance of consensus from several different editors when in fact it is possibly only one, using what appear to be a variety of sockpuppets (see see this [15] and this [16] and this [17] and this [18] and this [19] in support). Jack1956 ( talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Arcayne

(edit conflict)I find this particular comment by DG...odd: "It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who". Actually, it isn't, and that's part of the problem. In October of last year, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dreamguy violated 3RR and acted uncivilly, and because these violations occurred through his usage of his primary account and a back-up anon, the connection wasn't immediately uncovered and reported until after the 3RR and complaints grew stale (El_C and Dmcdevit declined to pursue on these grounds, and the RfCU was stalled while awaiting arbcom/an/i discussions stall). To date, Dreamguy has evaded any and all questions about his activitiies under that (or any, really) anon IP, even when specifically questioned about such by DickLyon.

This wacky excuse of Greamguy's - not knowing he's been signed out - could be true the first time it comes up, might be true the second time, and could remotely be true the third time, but by the fourth such complaint by unconnected editors, its time to for the editor in question to either voluntarily adjust their behavior, or to have it adjusted for them. That the user has refused to admit when questioned as to his anon status seems a clear indication that he is aware that he is doing wrong, and knows that his admission would be damning. Succinctly, any claim of 'oops, I didn't know' rings false.

Because of the ArbCom enforcement complaint in October, I have grown to mistrust DG's motives for editing anonymously. Clearly, he feels that he should be able to enjoy the same freedom to enjoy anonymously that El-C, Dmcdevit or most other users enjoy. Unfortunately, Dreamguy is under behavioral restrictions, which require monitoring for incidents of uncivil behavior. To me, this would seem to lessen (if not eliminate) that freedom to edit anonymously - especially those articles he contributes to under his primary account.

I think that El_C's suggestion that Dreamguy police his own awareness of his IP to be unrealistically optimistic. If Dreamguy were at all inclined to do so, he would have taken these steps the first four times the subject was broached (with at least two of them administrative-level complaints). Unfortunately, Dmdevit's request for ArbCom to pass a motion (requiring Dreamguy to edit using only his primary account) is the proportionate and proper course of action. This would act as a strong incentive for DG to police his online status more vigorously, as a failure to do so would result in a loss of editing privileges. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Dmcdevit's request seems reasonable to me. -- Deskana (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing when not logged in happens, as DreamGuy says, and others agree. However, it is possible for something to happen, and also for it to be a problem when it does. It is not necessary to consider whether editing logged out is accidental or otherwise, because in this case, examining the evidence and history, it is clear that it is causing problems when it does, and that it does happen regularly.

WP:SOCK does not just cover puppetry through multiple accounts. It also covers the need of the community to be able to reasonably assess and scrutinize a users' editing history, without undue difficulty or obscurity. That is so, whether the issue is wilful or unintended. I also recall from being asked to write a note to the effect, that on January 11 2008 User:Rlevse blocked DreamGuy for 96 hours. The comment at that time was:

User:DreamGuy has remedies dealing with "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", as well as enforcements. Also the spirit of the arb ruling and prior decisions took note of disruptive behavior. He has since been gaming the system via IP socking (and arguing the fragmenting of his edit history) and edit warring, blockable under standard rules separate from the case. In the light of prior arbitration, I have therefore listed his 96 hour block under this case because although not strictly within said restrictions, his conduct is a continuation of gaming and other activities. ( link)

In light of the above requests, the above block, and the general desirability of being able to review an editor's editing history, I would be inclined to endorse the request for amendment, and propose to that effect. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Motion to add an additional remedy, as follows:
2) DreamGuy is restricted to using one and only one account to edit, and may not edit as an unlogged-in IP. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, if not DreamGuy, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

1. Support FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Kirill 13:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. With the caveat that an occasional inadvertent instance occurs of editing while not logged in may occur once in awhile. The concern is really about an ongoing pattern of doing so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support with the understanding that rare occasional instances of editing without logging in do happen and will not be considered a violation of the motion if they are promptly brought to the attention of arbcom-l privately. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Per FloNight. The case decision shows concerns about sockpuppeting are legitimate. The system occasionally logs out registered users, but when you edit anonymously it shows in a big alert at the top of the page saying you are not logged in. Once or twice is an accident, but more than that can begin to look deceptive in the context. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Paul August ☎ 02:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. -- Deskana (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The motion is carried. A Clerk should please post and notify. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Everyking ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Everyking and discussion

When I made my previous appeal request a month ago, I was told to wait until February because at that point the arbitrators would have to look at whether or not to permanently lift my article parole, and that it would be more convenient for them to also review my other restrictions at the same time. I am unsure whether it is necessary to make a request about this; I was told by an arbitrator that the ArbCom intended to look at the matter regardless, but that it would still be helpful if I mentioned the appeal here. Everyking ( talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Could you also please post a link to the prior decision(s) and restriction(s) that you would like to have lifted, since there has been a lot of turnover on the committee since the earlier cases. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. According to former arb Raul, remedies 5 and X from the original case and remedy 4 from the amended ruling are still in effect. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that the remedies as they are written provide for these restrictions to continue after Nov. 2007, but Raul did not agree with me, so I have to rely on the ArbCom to decide whether A) they have already expired, B) they are still in effect but should be lifted now, or C) they should remain in place indefinitely or until some specified later point in time. Additionally, the suspension of my parole on pop music articles in November 2007 will expire this month, so it is necessary for the ArbCom to decide whether to drop the parole permanently or reimpose it. Everyking ( talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, we are starting to review it. I'll try to keep you updated. Poke me if you don't hear something by the middle of next week, okay. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the case be reviewed publicly, or at least semi-publicly, and that there be some kind of dialogue with me. Everyking ( talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting your request here, with Newyorkbrad and me replying here, is the first step in making the review public. ;-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that you are apparently reviewing the case exclusively on your private mailing list. I would like for it to be done at least partially in the open, so I can see the reasoning and make points in my defense if necessary. Everyking ( talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's going to be open, it ought to be completely open, so the community can participate. I've got evidence I could present, for one thing. -- Calton | Talk 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am all in favor of full openness. Everyking ( talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, my view is that almost all of the restrictions can be lifted at this time, but there have been reservations expressed about lifting the restriction on your interacting with Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) based upon the nature and history of your interactions with this user in the past. Could you kindly comment on whether maintaining this restriction in effect would have a substantial negative effect upon you or other editors. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the restriction itself goes, it doesn't really bother me, because I have no intention of interacting with that user anyway. However, I fear that any restriction at all will have some negative effect on my participation in the project, in the sense that arbitration restrictions act as a kind of scarlet letter. I would suggest that this restriction could be replaced by a personal pledge on my part to not interact with him; alternatively, the ArbCom could perhaps make it clear that the restriction is being left only due to historical reasons, that I have done nothing that the ArbCom views as a violation of that restriction or an offense against that user in a long time and that people should not therefore consider me a user of any kind of lesser standing because of that restriction. A third possibility is that you might ask the other user in question whether he wishes it to remain in place; if he had no objection to lifting it, that could make the answer simple. Everyking ( talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that motion 2 is almost exactly the same as the status quo. The only (slight) difference is that the music parole is terminated (it is now merely suspended); the other things that would be terminated according to remedy 2 were already terminated in November. So a vote for motion 2 is a vote for no change. I also am confused that FT2 says that motion 1 lifts all restrictions, including the one regarding Phil, but the actual motion says that the restriction on interacting with Phil would remain in effect. I feel I presented three reasonable suggestions about what could replace that remedy while still addressing arbitrator concerns and I would hope they could be given some consideration. But at the same time, I don't want to confuse or complicate the issue further, considering the arbitrators are presently split between the two motions. Everyking ( talk) 04:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has clarified the slight contradiction in his comment. With regard to the Phil Sandifer restriction, I tried to accommodate your concerns by noting that the continued restriction was based on past interactions, which was one of your points, and by specifically noting that you are eligible to post an RfA whenever you wish. I know this is not 100% of what you would have liked to see, but I tried to make a reasonable accommodation to your thoughts while posting a motion that addressed all competing concerns. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my concerns regarding that continuation of that aspect of the ruling would be largely addressed if the ArbCom stated that I should be considered a user in good standing. No one disputes that I'm eligible to post an RfA; the problem is that my arbitration restrictions cause people to consider me a user in poor standing and make it pointless for me to attempt going through the process. Everyking ( talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider you a user in good standing, irrespective of the outcome of the pending motions. However, I don't think the committee typically "evaluates" users (beyond imposing specific remedies where needed), and for better or worse, when I've proposed in workshops (before I was an arbitrator) a finding that a specific user remains in good standing, those proposals have never been accepted. If you want my personal opinion, any RfA by you will be controversial for a couple of reasons, regardless of the outcome of any motion that will be made, but I think that the controversy will have very little to do with whether there is an ongoing arbitration restriction against your talking about Snowspinner or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll let it go, then. Everyking ( talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On 18 July 2007 at 01:16 (UTC), the arbitration committee announced that I am a "user in good standing". Brad, are you implying that I might be the only person officially recognized in this manner? Flattering thought, though it may require some research. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests is reliable, then yes, you are. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If motion 2 succeeds, I would like the arbitrators to explain to me what I can do to get these restrictions lifted in the future. I'm sure the arbitrators wouldn't keep a penalty on me unconditionally, regardless of what I do. Everyking ( talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I much prefer motion 1, I will leave this for others to comment on. I presume the answer will be something like "avoid unnecessary disputes for awhile longer," but I shouldn't be presumptuous. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One might presume that, but given the length of time that has already passed, and considering that most of you are currently voting to uphold the status quo, I find it difficult to believe that a bit more time is going to make any difference. The ArbCom is voting to continue branding me as a harasser even though no one is claiming I have done anything resembling "harassment" in over 18 months. I'm not even trying to get the ArbCom to acknowledge I didn't harass people; I'd just like it to acknowledge that I don't harass people now, and apparently even that minimum level of redress is a bridge too far. Everyking ( talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Calton

Is my understanding of Amended Remedy 4 -- that Everyking is prohibited from commenting on admin actions -- period/full stop -- correct, or am I thinking of a different, now-expired remedy? Or is it that Everyking is restricted from commenting only if certain specified conditions (such as location of the criticism or tone of criticism) are true? I'd like to be sure before commenting on specifics. -- Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're remembering the original formulation in the Workshop, which was refined in the final decision to allow commenting on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari

I personally believe that Everyking should have all remaining sanctions lifted. I've interacted a few times with Everyking in the past few months, and every time I have I've found him to be courteous and intelligent. I think any problems he's had in the past have been addressed, and that he's learned from them, so I see little reason for any sanctions on him to continue. I very much doubt that Everyking would work to have his sanctions removed and then do something to have them re-instated. Like Newyorkbrad, I too consider Everyking to be a user in good standing. Acalamari 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Dissident

I am unsure about whether I am too late to give my opinion on this matter; I would have given it sooner, had it not been for my short break. However, I would now like to express my trust in Everyking, and my feeling that all of his "vices", as it were, be lifted. I have interacted with Everyking in past, and I believe that these sancitions are no longer needed. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

This case dates back to 2005; and had to be re-opened on three subsequent occasions for continuing issues between 2005 and July 2006. The issues kept trying to come back, it would seem. However, in the last 18 months, there has been comparative peace, and EveryKing now wants to ask, reasonably, if the issue (close to 2 years old) can be closed and all restrictions lifted.

Ordinarily I'd be inclined to agree, subject to checking with other arbitrators (with longer memories) whether matters have indeed been reasonable since then. That is the view of motion #1. However there was an incident in October 2007 which looks like it has left Kirill with concerns. The matter was resolved civilly, and Everyking was willing to offer a reasonable compromise after some discussion and initial heel-digging, and was unblocked. The agreement seems to have worked that time. But I can see why concerns may linger on conduct issues, and why perhaps motion 2 is proposed also.

The differences between the two are remedies 5 ("required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it") and harassment/enforcement, would persist under motion #2. Does Everyking still need the protection of these to prevent him (and the community) from such conduct issues in future, or without them, will he still keep himself well? Or does the general track record since 2006, and the at least bearable handling of the above incident, suggest they are no longer needed? That's the issue. Will opine when I've considered a bit more. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Update - away the weekend. If I haven't voted by tomorrow noon UTC, assume I'm offline, and supportive of either as 1st or 2nd choices. If others are ready to close then count me away and do so. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Update 2 - minor correction as per EK's comment above. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Motion 1:

Any remaining restrictions previously imposed upon Everyking ( talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 or by subsequent motions are terminated, effective immediately, except that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with or commenting about Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) remains in effect based on the previous history of interaction between those users. Everyking is urged to continue to bear in mind the guidance regarding best editing and commenting practices provided in the committee's decisions. The committee notes that Everyking is eligible to submit a request for adminship at any time. It would be up to the community to decide whether to reconfer administrator status.

Support:

1. I am hopeful that the restrictions on this editor are no longer necessary. See also discussion above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
2. This seems to me a reasonable move forward, to recognise Everyking's more productive behaviour but to retain a restriction about contacting Phil Sandifer as a backstop. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Either is fine by me. -- Deskana (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Support either; the request for views gave 2 views both supporting that sanctions are no longer needed. Hence marginally prefer this to #2. But looks like #2 has consensus.

Oppose:

1. No. See alternate motion. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion 2:

• 1. Remedy 2 of EK3 (prohibition against posting on AN/I) is terminated.
  2. Remedy 3 of EK3 (commenting on admin's actions) is terminated.
  3. Everyking's music article "parole" is terminated.
  4. Remedy 5 of EK3 is continued (and indeed, is a common sense requirement for all editors.)
  5. Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer) is continued.
  6. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3 is continued.
  7. Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes.

Support:

1. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as second choice if my motion fails. However, this vote should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Remedy 5 is common sense and therefore almost impossible to enforce. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Either is fine by me. -- Deskana (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Second choice.
10. This one's a little more direct. -- bainer ( talk) 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
12. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Support either; the request for views gave 2 views both supporting that sanctions are no longer needed. Hence some question whether the continuing restrictions are needed. But looks like this is the motion that is likely to have consensus.

Oppose:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• SirFozzie ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by SirFozzie

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

This remedy, passed on the Free Republic RfArb, unfortunately has lacked teeth, and the page has had to be protected for numerous edit wars between Eschoir (who has a conflict of interest after being involved in legal action initated by Free Republic) and several accounts, largely believed to be sock or meat puppets of community banned (and ArbCom endorsed Ban) User:BryanFromPalatine. See this edit for evidence submitted by :Lawrence Cohen as a report requested by CheckUser User:Lar. I'd like to formally request that the Arbitration Committee modify the above sanction in the following way.

Proposed sanction

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any uninvolved administrator. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Thank you. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Proposed sanction 2.1

The standard article probation wording seems to have been developed after the Free Republic case. It would be:

Free Republic is placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from Free Republic and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Additionally, I support SirFozzie's request for better enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

(In response to Jehochman 2.1):
Support. Lawrence § t/ e 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Other prior discussion

Esteemed SirFozzie: I certainly do not wish to appear disputatious, but when was it determined that I have a current COI with anybody? What evidence was taken and who heard it? It was formerly determined, and I will allow, that I had a COI, seven years ago. France had a COI with Germany in 1940, but I believe that dispute settled, too, and the French may edit the Merkel page to this day. Eschoir ( talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you picked the wrong World War as your analogy, Eschoir. The Germans had a COI with France in 1914, and most of the world thought that dispute was settled in 1918. But the Germans held a grudge for more than two decades. Your actions are speaking louder than your words. On the Talk page, Shibumi2's description of your editing agenda is right on the money. You're trying to take out everything good, and stuff in everything bad. I have a COI because I hate Freepers. I know better than to edit that article. You should too. Neutral Good ( talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

8.1) Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.. Look familiar? SirFozzie ( talk) 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was referring to. There was a hearing a year ago, evidence taken, and a formal finding published, which you have reproduced here. That finding did not include finding a current COI, though it could have. Now, though nothing has changed since that finding, the sockpuppets want another bite at the apple, or rather, want to bypass the former finding through wave upon wave of suicide sockpuppets ready to be bannned for the cause keeping up a constant drumbeat of COI! COI! until it becomes a fait accompli, which practice has succeeded somewhat in coloring your opinion without hearing from me. Eschoir ( talk) 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I made that decision all on my own.. Someone who has been in legal conflict with another organization isn't quite the best person to write about that person. It's like asking Greenpeace to write the article on the Exxon Valdez. I have noted many times that all the other accounts on the other side are likely to be related in many ways to BryanFromPalatine, even if it can't be substantiated. Wikipedia is not a Battleground, and that's what we have on our hands here. SirFozzie ( talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that it wasn't a battleground from the time Freedomaintfree was banned till six months later when Shibumi2 restored a previous sock's version? Eschoir ( talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a period when you were editing the article all by yourself, and turned it into what Samurai Commuter accurately described as a "bitter little personal blog of a banned Freeper" and a " poison pen letter to Jim Robinson." It's hard to have a battleground when there's only one person present. As for your claim about "another bite of the apple," there is abundant new evidence that (A) you are incapable of overcoming your COI, and (B) you can't leave the article and related pages (such as MD4Bush Incident) alone as I have done without being given a proper incentive. I hate Freepers. That's why I never edited that article and never will. I admit that I have a COI. Since there is abundant new evidence to support additional action by ArbCom in this matter, through no one's fault but your own, ArbCom should take action. I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. Neutral Good ( talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to all the parties who have ably demonstrated to ArbCom why this is necessary. SirFozzie ( talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed Neutral Good, he just announced a wikibreak Eschoir ( talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project.

That sure reads like: You've got a really nice little night club here, Vinnie, I'd hate to see anythin' bad happen to it. Extortion is such a harsh word. Eschoir ( talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just seeing if ArbCom can or will take this up. I'm all for being WP:ROGUE and settling the matter myself if need be, but I wanted to give ArbCom the chance to look at their finding and see if it needs to be updated first. SirFozzie ( talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of this discussion took place prior to the new format, and is in a threaded style which is now not in use. Future comments in individual sections. Thanks! - FT2

Statement by Eschoir

(In response to Proposed Motion):
I support all except this quibble

editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest,

I may be wrong or just presumptuous, but COI is a term of art, with a particular definition meant to describe a factual state. Using language such as 'may reasonably be percieved as having a COI' would would equate opinion with fact. A 'reasonable' standard is less stringent than a 'preponderance' standard, and certainly not a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Recast the sentence thus: "Editors who are or may reasonably be perceived as being pregnant . . ." and see how absurd that standard is.

"All editors" means all editors. The gloss on SPAs and COIs is unnecessary, and potentially harmful, and I urge thoughtful reflection before adoption of such language. Eschoir ( talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Eschoir

1. All editors are strongly urged to do this. (Because it's a communal norm.)
2. Users who have a focus on that article specifically, and therefore may draw concern as to their neutrality from others (whether accurate or not), and also editors who actually in the real world do have a conflict of interest, and also editors who may not have a conflict of interest but where it is likely given their edits that a reasonable person may feel concern due to the perceptions arising from those edits, are being particularly reminded to do so, since they are considered more likely to run into such issues (due to prior disruption there) and therefore should take especial care to avoid doing so.

I have no problem with any of those statements. The issue is, can the community use them to deal with the issue. My feeling is they can. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Support:

1. Per discussion above and previously on this page as well as evidence and proposals submitted in the Waterboarding case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
2. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Has more likelihood of sufficient teeth, and allows for review if not. Modified one word: "closely related article" to "closely related page", noting this wording may include their talk pages and project pages also.
3. Hope this helps make the articles more in compliance with our core content policies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
4. More powers for administrators in this article are needed. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Kirill 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recuse, which I guess works the same. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The motion is adopted. The Clerk will kindly post and notify. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Wiki-user3728 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator, SPA)
• Octavian history ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Octavian history

I am writing this for User:Octavian history [20] because his account was blocked by an admin who is abusing his powers. Here is what he wrote:

"Dear Wikipedia admins, I am a major contributor to Wikipedia and have been blocked for no reason. Wanted to ask for your help. As a scholar and historian I have tried very hard to improve Wikipedia and make it a better place.

User Gyrofrog (real name [redacted]) is an admin who is abusing his powers and has blocked my account (Octavian history) indefinitely for absolutely no reason. I can prove he has stalked my every move and has lead a terror campaign against me from the minute I started on wiki! He is absolutely obsessed with my every move and is a very unjust individual. He claims he blocked me because I am a "sock puppet", but that is absolutely not true. A few people do use this computer at the office and I did not know they can't write about the same subject. Gyro claims I have a million sock puppets, but that claim is 100% false. I have asked the two individuals at my office to never write about the same subject again, so it does not any confusion.

Wiki rule says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". I have never damaged Wikipedia and only helped construct over 1200 edits.

I have not done anything wrong, but have made over a 1200 constructive edits and created many new topics of great interest with factual citations. I started and convinced the scientific community on wiki to correct and change the name of Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species.

I have not only made over a thousand constructive edits, but I have also created dozens of important pages such as:

Beverly Hills Police Department

Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union speech

Jack Clemmons

Marina Oswald Porter (Lee Harvey Oswald's wife, the assasin of President Kennedy)

Please restore my account and please tell me how to stop gyrofrog from harassing and stalking me. Thank you very much for your time!!!

Sincerely, Octavian history"-- Wiki-user3728 ( talk) 12:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally posted by User:Wiki-user3728 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Octavian history on February 19, 2008. Original has since been oversighted -- see above redaction. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher (Checkuser)

I have rechecked the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. It is clear that the following accounts have been operated from the same computer and the same internet connection: Octavian history ( talk · contribs); Hasan075 ( talk · contribs); Wallststockguy ( talk · contribs); The-Scriptorium ( talk · contribs); Equinoximus ( talk · contribs); Monroebuffzz204 ( talk · contribs); Sam838south ( talk · contribs); Sarazip1 ( talk · contribs). Other listed accounts are too old to check. Detailed records will be made available to the Arbitrators on request. Sadly, checkuser is not enabled with a time-travelling reverse web-cam, so claims of family/friends/etc editing will have to evaluated on behavioral as well as technical grounds. However, one particular series of edits on 19 January may shed light on this request.

• 19:32 Octavian history comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajj Amin Elahi
• 19:43 Octavian history signs a comment on the AfD [21]
• 19:47 someone at this computer connects to Wikipedia through AOL and creates Hasan075 ( talk · contribs)
• 19:49 Hasan075 votes in the AfD [22]
• 19:52 Hasan075 makes an edit to Kurdish music
• 21:33 Hasan075 is indefinitely blocked by Gyrofrog
• 21:44 Octavian history is blocked for 24 hours by Gyrofrog for abusing multiple accounts

Note that Wiki-user3728 ( talk · contribs) and Holy-wiki ( talk · contribs) are also coming from the same connection and computer. Thatcher 05:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Gyrofrog (blocking admin)

As I am specifically named in Wiki-user3728's request, and as I am the blocking admin, I am directly involved. As such, the requester should have (but did not) notify me, as per step 4 in the instructions at the top of this section. I am compelled to point out that the requester has moved on to impugning my name ( "sick individuals like Gyrofrog"). Over the course of our interactions I have never addressed Octavian_history in such a manner (nor, for that matter, anyone else on Wikipedia). Whatever the ultimate outcome, I am asking that Wiki-user3728, Octavian_history, et al be further enjoined from making personal attacks against me, including accusations of stalking, obsession, etc. (e.g. this series of edits). As for Octavian_history's block, I think the checkuser results speak for themselves (particularly the edits made four minutes apart from 2 accounts), but also that (at least in hindsight) the conflict of interest described at User_talk:Johnyajohn#June_2007 was and is sufficient. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• See evidence of large scale sock use at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn, on more than one occasion. I do not agree that Gyrofrog's block can be construed as "harassing" or "stalking". His role as an administrator is to prevent abuse of editing privileges. A request for checkuser review concluded there was disruptive sockpuppetry and the account was indeed a sockpuppet.
  
  I also note that this request is itself not without problems. The bringer of this request, User:Wiki-user3728, who states "I am writing this for User:Octavian history because his account was blocked", is actually (and unsurprisingly), almost certainly not "writing for" someone, but is almost certainly Octavian History himself. As a second aside he seems to have used his login on Feb 19 to create a second account, used as an undisclosed new sockpuppet, namely Holy-wiki ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update, comment received: "Dear sir, I am not him, but a family member. If you look at his history you will notice he has not done a single vandalism or unconstructive edit. He has also fought against vandals. There are thousands of people who attack wiki every minute with vandalism. I truly can't believe that you would not side with someone who has tried hard to create and improve so many articles. Two of the puppets were friends and family members, not the 100 that have been named. Also, we did not know that friends and family cannot agree about the same subject. I can easily never work on any article that he does from now on if that helps" [23]. Submitted for RFCU review, again at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the long history of abuse, the checkuser findings, the personal attacks against the blocking administrator, and the fact that the request is from a sockpuppet of a blocked/banned user, no action is warranted on this appeal. The proper procedure for banned users who would like their bans removed is via e-mail to the committee. In light of the history here, I would prefer to see at least 6 months elapse without further socking or abuse before I would entertain such an appeal. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to original case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Notification of involved users:

• Ferrylodge ( talk · contribs) [24]
• FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [25]
• KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [26]

Statement by MastCell

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge, Ferrylodge ( talk · contribs) was identified as having "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion." He was placed under indefinite sanction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Recently Ferrylodge has taken what I consider to be a very disruptive tack on Talk:Abortion. I posted diffs and details here at WP:AE, because I believe that his behavior represented a continuation of his disruptive and tendentious approach to abortion-related articles sanctioned in the ArbCom case. My filing was reviewed by User:GRBerry, who raised the very sensible issue that the sanction applies to "articles" and likely not to associated talk pages.

Talk:Abortion and associated pages are contentious under the best of circumstances. Based on the diffs and evidence in my AE report, I believe that Ferrylodge is disrupting these talk pages with tendentious, circular arguments, presumptions of bad faith, extensive wikilawyering, and the like. I'm asking, therefore, that the sanction from his case be amended to read: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any page which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." This would include talk pages, WikiProjects, and the like, though presumably somewhat greater latitude would be provided on these pages than in article-space. I believe this extension is justified based on his lengthy history and ongoing behavior. MastCell  ^Talk 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response to GRBerry: No, there are no previous logged Blocks&Bans. Still, Ferrylodge has constantly been testing the limits of his sanctions. For example, here at WP:AE 2 admins (AGK and Rlevse) found his conduct disruptive - in fact, AGK banned him from Roe v. Wade - but he was let off the hook with yet another promise to reform, though his tactics had played a role in driving a very valuable contributor off Wikipedia. That pattern has repeated itself long enough. At some point, a critical mass of disruption is achieved here, and I think we're at that point. MastCell  ^Talk 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Response to Ferrylodge: I'm asking a very specific and straightforward question about an ArbCom case here. I'm not interested in defending myself against your attempts to distract, impugn, or muddy the waters. The reasoning behind my edits is discussed in depth on the relevant article talk pages. If you have a problem with my conduct, then please follow dispute resolution. MastCell  ^Talk 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Response to NCdave: Since we have a long history of failing to get along well, I don't think it's constructive to follow me around and inject yourself into unrelated disputes. MastCell  ^Talk 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

In interpreting the case, I noted that the committee explicitly chose the passed wording over a prior version that said "article or other page". The other difference was that the prior version was "is banned" and the passed version is "uninvolved administrator may ban". I don't know which difference the committee was focusing on.

There has been a prior request for clarification on this issue, which no committee member responded to. It is logged at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision#More clarification requested. Thatcher then said "The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption." I too am certainly going to allow more freedom in discussion venues (talk pages, XfDs, and the like).

I also note Kirill's comment earlier today on the Macedonia case: "'Page' (as opposed to the narrower 'article') applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Since Thatcher (who has more WP:AE experience than I) and I are reading the tea leaves differently, clarification may well be in order even if expansion isn't.

There is currently nothing logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans. GRBerry 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the more complete clarification response in the Macedonia case above, the current report was closed out without action. I take no position on whether expansion is in order. GRBerry 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ferrylodge

I’ve responded to Mastcell at the Arbitration Enforcement proceeding that he initiated, and at the pertinent article talk page.

I hope that any further decision or clarification by ArbCom in this matter will be prospective only (which may be Mastcell’s intent anyway). I also hope that my comments at the pertinent talk page will not be viewed in isolation, but rather ArbCom should be free to review the behavior of all involved people, including "trusted members of the community."

Mastcell does not object to any article edit that I made. He objects to my talk page comments. And Mastcell is not denying that those comments followed up on a false statement that he had inserted into the article text, with an accompanying footnote in which Mastcell cited a POV newspaper editorial that did not even support the false statement that he was inserting into the article text. As far as I know, Mastcell does not deny any of this, but rather he deems all of this context irrelevant. It is very relevant. Unlike Mastcell, I did not disrupt the article text at all, and no one accuses me of having done so.

At the corresponding article talk page, Mastcell made numerous false allegations and personal attacks against me. He falsely accused me of “quote-mining a primary source” and of using “ a series of quotes from primary sources to advance your opinion” and “massag[ing] the primary sources” and “violat[ing] WP:SYN to mine quotes from a primary source” and trying to “set aside WP:NOR.”

I respectfully submit to ArbCom that all of these wiki-lawyering accusations by Mastcell were blatantly false. I do not see how ArbCom could agree to Mastcell’s present request without examining whether those accusations by Mastcell were indeed blatantly false.

It is tendentious for an Admin to make a stream of false accusations at an article talk page, while also inserting false material and POV footnotes into the article text. You may disregard these assertions of mine because Mastcell is a “trusted member of the community.” However, I urge you to please look at the facts. The discussion at the article talk page became heated, and Mastcell was as much a part of the heat as myself, if not more so. I was responding to irresponsible edits by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) in the article text, and responding to irresponsible accusations against me by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) at the article talk page. I have tried my best to avoid causing what even the most biased person might consider disruption of any article text covered by the Arbcom decision, and no one accuses me of having done so. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Mastcell: The title of the request you made here at this page says that you are interested in "expanding" the remedy in my case. You're requesting that the language of the remedy be amended, and you've supplied ArbCom with more expansive language for them to adopt. So please don't pretend that you are merely asking a "specific and straightforward question" about the meaning of a previous remedy. You are seeking an amended and expanded remedy, and you are relying on a long list of "diffs and details." However, when I mention details that are not on your long list, you now accuse me of trying to play, distract, impugn, and muddy the waters. This is the kind of counterproductive wikilawyering that I referred to in my statement above, and I'm asking you politely to please ease up. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: A few minutes ago, Mastcell made this reversion. I am totally flabbergasted. I do not understand it, see no justification for it, and feel compelled to mention it here. Please judge for yourselves. Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Strider12: While I appreciate Strider12's kind words, I do want to set the record straight a little bit. As I have explained, [27] I have not said that the secondary sources in question (Science, New York Times, New Scientist, or Washington Monthly) are "unreliable" or "conflicted with the transcript". I have simply claimed that a quote from the hearing transcript will provide MORE info than is provided in those publications. I still believe that to be true, and still believe (as does Strider12) that the quote from the hearing transcript should clearly not have been removed from this Wikipedia article, [28] because the quote provides further notable and neutral info, because it narrowly addresses the precise matter discussed by the secondary sources, because it is available for free at a reliable online source, and because it fully complies with Wikipedia rules regarding use of primary sources. [29] Nor do I believe that it involves original research, or synthesis, or quote-mining, or POV, or any of the other nasty things that have been attributed to it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Zsero

Regardless of whether this specific decision was meant to include talk pages, having looked at the edits to which Mastcell objects, I see nothing disruptive in them. Now I haven't been at all involved in the history of that page, so I don't know how it might seem to someone who is involved, but the essence of Mastcell's complaint seems to be that in making a perfectly valid edit, Ferrylodge cynically assumed that someone would revert it, and got his response in first, so to speak. Mastcell seems to be claiming that this lack of AGF was inherently disruptive, and that Ferrylodge was under an obligation to pretend that he expected his edit to be accepted in good grace, simply because it was true, and only to respond once it was in fact reverted. The fact that his prediction seems to have been fulfilled would seem to me to vindicate him. And in light of his past treatment, especially the lynch mob back in September (my disgust at how he was treated caused me to withdraw from WP for several months), I think he's entitled to anticipate opposition to anything he does on that page, however valid, and to defend his edits as if they had already been challenged. At least that's how it appears to this utterly uninvolved editor (I only knew about this action because I had Ferrylodge's talk page on my watch list from when I made an edit to it way back when). -- Zsero ( talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by NCdave

Sorry for the late participation; I just noticed this.

Like Zsero, I also can see no evidence at all of disruptive editing by Ferrylodge. I went to Ferrylodge's contribs, and read more of his contributions for myself. I did not read them all -- he's been a very prolific contributor for several years, on many topics. But what I found was consistently careful, well-written, well-sourced information from a thoughtful and careful contributor who obviously knows what he's talking about. Ferrylodge has diligently sought to make constructive contributions, in the face of tendentious POV-pushing by MastCell, IronAngelAlice, and a few others.

Note that MastCell's ally, IronAngelAlice, is a one-topic editor who has a history of abusive behavior using multiple accounts. Her previous ID was permanently blocked for it, and this one was blocked for a week, but she's at it again.

MastCell is also trying to get another excellent contributor, Strider12, banned. Strider12 and Ferrylodge are the two editors who have made the most constructive, well-sourced contributions to the abortion-related articles. I am truly appalled. NCdave ( talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Strider12

I'm hesitant to even comment as I'm afraid my "taking sides" will be used by MastCell to further her attacks on me. But, here I go...

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know any of the history of Ferrylodge or why s/he was banned. As I saw it, Ferrylodge did nothing except point out that the cited sources (from pro-choice leaning publications) conflicted with the transcript and invited others to comment and edit. But apparantly knowing Ferrylodge was under a ban, MastCell was quick to start alleging that he was being disruptive.

I can also say that I had asked on several occasions on the abortion mental health talk page what the full context of the Koop "miniscule" qoute was because it was out of sync with all the other published statements he had made. No one provided the full statement and question until Ferrylodge provided it. Therefore, I consider it a contribution.

But I was also unsurprised by MastCell's wikilawyering to minimize the significance of this proof that the phrase was actually used by Congressman Weiss and misattributed to Koop. In this case Ferrylodge was demonstrating from a primary source (congressional transcripts) that the secondary sources relied upon by MastCell were not reliable regarding this particular fact.

In many similar cases, when I have supplied material from reliable secondary sources, including multiple peer reviewed studies of the highest quality, MastCell and/or others encouraged by MastCell have deleted them with no justification other than that the findings and opinions of experts who disagree with their small set of preferred sources should not be included without their consent..."consensus"...which is never to be given. In my view, this unrelenting pattern of deleting reliable sources is a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption 1. In my view, it is MastCell and his/her cohorts whose deletes s/he defends, who is disruptively deleting material from this article.

It has been my experience that MastCell has a long history of trying to suppress my contributions regarding abortion and mental health, and most of this time there have been no abortion critics participating in the conversation except myself. My take on this complaint is that MastCell is upset that Ferrylodge came in with evidence that supported my concerns and that Ferrylodge appears to be a threat to his/her attempts to portray Srider12 as always wrong.

Fundamentally, this argument is not about editors or contributions, it is about the most contentious issue of the day, abortion, and the belief of some editors that any fact or source that does not contribute to the whitewash of the abortion/mental health effects is suspect and should be dismissed, minimized, or obstructed with demands for "consensus".-- Strider12 ( talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• By convention and long practice, the term "articles" in Arbitration cases should be read as "pages" meaning article, talk, wikiproject, template, and any other page. I happen to be otherwise occupied and taking a break from WP:AE for a while, but I would have no problem applying and enforcing the ban you propose. Thatcher 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you notice that Kirill said the opposite this morning in a different request for clarification? (Diff in my statement.) GRBerry 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I can probably find diffs that say the opposite, from various Arbitrators over the last 18 months. I can deal with either a broad interpretation or a narrow one, but having both is pretty annoying. If there were two alternative proposals for voting that differentiated between page and article that would be definitive, but I rather suspect it is due to imprecise drafting of the proposed decisions. I guess we either need a vote on this case or a general clarification of Arbitration policy. As far as I am concerned, narrowly limiting probation to articles invites just this sort of problem. Thatcher 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• References to "any article" are generally meant to include talkpages. I will try to make sure that any ambiguity on this score is avoided in future decisions. Not commenting on the other issues as yet. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In the past, the term "articles" in a restriction has been ambiguously used to mean both mainspace article pages, and "any pages". In general therefore (and since disruption on a mainspace page can often move to disruption on a talk page or other related project page), the Committee is willing to look at replacing the term "any article" by "any page" in a ruling where this may have been the intent, or where it may be a better choice as an extension and clarification. It would usually be reasonable to check first the original evidence to see what type of conduct existed at the time, and whether it was likely to be the then-Arbitrators' intention that a ruling apply to only mainspace. But this is only one factor. Even if that was the decision then, it is open to amendment now. Cases only come to Arbitration if serious, and often therefore rulings have a certain degree of "end of dispute" intention to them. I haven't yet read the original case so this is basic guidance only for now. Basically, "as Newyorkbrad said". FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user, RJ CG ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth 84.50.127.105 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Martintg

I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I don't think it is necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being promptly blocked for two weeks for 3RR. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no significant articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:

• The applicable scope: Eastern Europe broadly defined, or just Estonia related articles?
• The definition of uninvolved admin for enforcement from that case as well Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Uninvolved_administrators
• Lifting of the ban for Digwuren. Nobody from either side wanted year long bans. Given Digwuren only joined around April 2007, had not been previously subjected any other genuine dispute resolution attempts before being taken to ArbCom (obviously Irpen's opinions carry a lot of weight with ArbCom), this newbie certainly has been bitten hard. We need at least one person from Estonia who can speak the language and willing to contribute meaningfully to articles.

Thanks. Martintg ( talk) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Biophys

Unlike Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "Eastern European subjects" are not clearly defined. Does this include every Russia-related topic, like Russia-China relations or Soviet intelligence operations in the United States? If we want to follow the "Israeli-Palestinian" remedy, the "conflict area" should be clearly defined, say "Russian-Polish" or "Russian-Estonian" conflicts. Anything that is not area of conflict (e.g. articles on Russian-Turkish subjects or internal Russian affairs) do not belong there. Could you please clarify which subjects are covered? Biophys ( talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I would highly appreciate any answer. ArbCom members are votiong below, but about what? Biophys ( talk)

Statement by User:Vecrumba

I would like to know better what's being defined as the scope of applicability and what, if any, specific history of warnings is being proposed as moving sanctions to the "next level." My concern is that as the scope is expanded, "uninvolved" will also extend to "uninformed"--there has to be substantial awareness of editors' past histories in order to draw an objective judgement. If you just go by who accuses whom in the latest trail, it's quite possible that all that happens is a blanket conviction of the guilty and the innocent--if you come in on a fight, how do you know who started it? The notion that someone who is attacked is just going to sit and smile and assume good faith is only good for one round of edits; if an editor persists in behavior that is taken as an attack, the attacked editor(s) will respond and should not be held equally to blame for any escalation. — PētersV ( talk) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a code of etiquette. I have debated (civilly) paid propaganda pushers by sticking to sources, so I know it is possible not to escalate into conflict. What has worked is...

• Always stick to what a source says. This is not as simple as it sounds, I've had to buy $150 sources (not even available at the library) just to prove they were being quoted correctly, literally, but being grossly misrepresented to push a patently false POV.
• Corollary: Article content should be based on what sources say, not on what editors interpret sources to say. Editors have summarized content coming to different conclusions regarding content in characterizing reputable sources which differ from the authors' own summaries appearing within those self-same materials.
• Corollary: Use the same terminology in the article as in reputable sources. For example, neither embellish nor dilute words such as "occupied." That "occupy" can be taken to be "accusatory" is irrelevant, if it is what the reputable source uses, that is what the Wikipedia article uses.
• Discuss any major changes prior to making them, whether additions, modifications, or deletions. If consensus is not reached, the change is not made. If consensus is reached, then changes are implemented. Delete first, discuss later (in the area of articles where there is significant polarization of position or initial "disapprovals" are lodged by historically known antagonists) is looked upon as an act of bad faith, that is, preemptive removal of content without discussion or consensus is viewed as edit warring. — PētersV ( talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Relata refero

I have recently stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor, which I discovered while cleaning up Historical revisionism, and am startled by the level of hostility and accusations of bad faith that seem to be acceptable in this area, even towards those manifestly uninvolved. I would like some firm statements adjuring editors to read and follow WP:OR and WP:AGF, as well as some sense that adminstrators will be able to evaluate those who are 'involved' accurately, and that there will be some appealing of that judgment. Relata refero ( talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I assume that the area of "conflict" is all those articles that have as their subjects the history and current status of the relations between Russia and the former states of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. Relata refero ( talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd mention regarding Denial of the Holodomor that several editors including myself were reprimanded when Gatoclass made some assertions which led to a degenerating spiral we could not escape from. All participants were "put on the list" by Thatcher. I disagreed with Thatcher's conclusion regarding my personal editorial conduct, however, I still prefer that to the alternative.

  You're only coming to the discussion there on what I think is its third round. I completely agree that the general "divide" is along versions of history which echo Sovietism and versions by the countries formerly subjugated under Sovietism. I say "versions" because basic facts are often in dispute, they are not "views" or "POVs" regarding a common set of facts or circumstances. — PētersV ( talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be said that "stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor" consisted of Relata refero initially deleting huge sections of referenced content on February 12th from that article without first discussing the issues or obtaining consensus on the talk page. Not the best way to introduce one self to the other editors of any article, however Relata refero's edit history only goes back to October 11, 2007, so perhaps it was inexperience. Despite this, the other editors have been exceedingly patient and civil with him/her. Martintg ( talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean?

Yes, the article's one of the worst imaginable, and I acted on WP:BRD. About "exceedingly patient and civil"... wow. What a mess EE articles must be if someone thinks that was "exceedingly patient and civil". Strengthens the case for stringent restrictions, I'd say? Relata refero ( talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can continue on the article page. It's only the "worst imaginable" partly because (I believe) you believe it is something in scope which it is not, so perhaps we can keep disparaging Q.E.D. remarks to article talk where editors would expect to find them to comment on them. :-) Was there bolding I missed? PētersV ( talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(cross posted with additions) Mass deletion of EE content is most typically (historically) associated with "I don't like it" edit wars, so I would ask editors to be sensitive to that and discuss prior to deletion, not delete as an act of improvement and then (appear to deign to) discuss. Because of past experiences, that sort of editorial conduct is looked upon as not acting in good faith. Generally speaking, EE article etiquette is to discuss major changes, additions, and deletions prior; to never impose what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia as a "model" or "standard" but to stick to sources, etc. — PētersV ( talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Even unreliable ones...

We shouldn't make excuses for departures from core Wikipedia policies, but look for ways to enforce them. Relata refero ( talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. -- Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, comment is probably best given in the first instance by arbitrators who were active when that case was being heard. Deferring to othes to clarify the above. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "summary bans" bit predates some of the more useful methods we've developed since then; I'd prefer not to funnel everything through a bottleneck by having the Committee do everything itself, but rather to take the standard approach we've used for other conflict areas recently. See my motion below. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am recusing myself due to my prior involvement as an administrator. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:

1) Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

3) Other provisions

This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. This is more helpful to those who find themselves involved in editing disputes over Eastern Europe, whether as participant or administrator. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

   Support so as to conform the rules for discretionary sanctions in this area to the ones we have developed in more recent cases, and without prejudice to any steps we might take later based on recommendations of the working group. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Marting reminds me on my talk that some of his points from above have not been addressed. Would urge that the motion be clarified to address them. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Mackensen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Mackensen

As the committee is no doubt aware Encyclopaedia Dramatica is presently up on Deletion Review, in the form of a new draft article ( User:Shii/ED). This editorial process is constrained by findings and rulings from the MONGO case, and may well have outlived their usefulness. The case turned on the harrassment of MONGO by other users, many of whom were connected with ED. While lamentable, this shouldn't have any bearing on our ability to cover or not cover a topic: it is not necessary to endorse the existence of thing in documenting it. Our policies demand an honest editorial debate on the matter, but the broadness of remedy # 1 and the obvious personal umbrage taken by numerous editors, including at least one sitting arbitrator, precludes such a debate.

FoF # 13 states that the article was deleted because "the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source." Arbcom isn't supposed to make content rulings, but we sometimes sneak them in anyway through obiter dicta like that one. Real challenges have been raised as to whether this is really the case anymore, and Shii's draft article does not fit such a description. This, more than anything else, suggests that the principles which undergird the case are no longer operative.

I would request that remedy # 1 be clarified either to refer only to articles concerning specific Wikipedia users, or revoked altogether. Most things on ED aren't suitable for this wiki anyway because of our "vast policy differences." In my view the committee overreached and prejudiced editorial decisions in drafting this decision. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Hey all...my deepest appreciation for informing me about this discussion! Seriously, an arbitration case I was named in, that appears to be on the threshold of having its major motions and remedies eliminated or severely altered and NO ONE BOTHERS TO LET ME KNOW! As can be seen by the DRV on this article, there does not seem to be a community backed consensus to restore the article that has been developed in another editor's userspace. [30]...so what brings all this up? Well, let me inform you of what I know. Firstly, over a dozen of our editors resigned due to the ongoing harassment posted about them at that website...Do we need to be so inclusive we risk losing editors just so we can be such a compendium of "knowledge"...I think not. The website is of only marginal notability at best...at best. Let me repeat my first point...I know of at least a dozen editors who quit editing here because of the stuff posted on that website. I know this because after I went through what I did with the people affiliated with that website, I received over a dozen calls for aide...at one point the possibility of suing them was considered. Phaedriel was probably the best known editor to abandon this project...thanks in no small part to that website. Second point...IF we recreate the article, then ultimately someone will link to that website...that is where my fight started. They made their MONGO article "featured" and posted it on their mainpage...I repeatedly removed those links from our article on that website and was combated by a series of trolls and other editors who for some bizarre reason did not understand that I was not going to allow them or that website to libel me via this one...I am not a pedophile as the people there have written. Phaedriel is not the things they claim about her, nor are the other "wikipedos" that they have listed, accurately depicted. For the record, the article they have on me is far from the worst...very far from it. But I am here on wikipedia to write articles and to protect our editors from harassment...I cannot do that if we, as a website, are going to turn a blind eye to this major issue just so we can be "all inclusive", especially when we are talking about a website of extremely marginal notability, that attacks our contributors, and yes, slanders and libels them. Many complain that we, right here on Wikipedia, also slander and libel people, especially in our bios...that is a serious issue, but we have the power here to do something about that. We do not have the power to make adjustments to the same (and generally far worse) slander and libel that ED presents. But we can control whether we import that nonsense here. There are still millions of articles we can write...what the heck makes having an article on ED so important? How many articles do we yet lack about various insect species, birds, plants, glaciers, people, events, places? Maybe the committee would be better off telling the dramaqueens that have started to proliferate this website to start writing articles and stop wasting our server space with their generally worthless opinions, than spending so much energy rewriting an arbitration case in which the situation hasn't changed...that website still lacks notability, it still libels our contributors, it will ultimately lead to further problems...and further time wasted here, in this particular forum. Lastly, I do have other things I can do with my time than edit here...my life is valuable to me and the friends I have made here on this website are important to me...let's not be trendy and get limp wristed about this matter...we have an obligation to do all we can to make editing here a pleasant experience...not one where we have to look over our shoulder wondering why some creep has decided that he can link to ED and attack our contributors in the process. Yes, I know, the committee does not make content rulings in most cases...well maybe you should in this matter and do so with the spirit of respect and in the interest of facilitating encyclopedia writing and the writers who contribute here and ensuring they have the ability to spend their valuable personal time in peace as much as possible.-- MONGO 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is really funny and so predictable. I just knew good ole Dtobais would show up to make his comment here...he wants Sceptre's activities examined here...lets instead examine Mr. Tobais...yes, examine via his own precious links to wikipedia review the less than appealing comments he has made about our editors...heck, lets examine his ongoing insults posted right here on this page and numerous others on wikipedia, where he neverendingly refers to those with the opposite beliefs of his on this type of subject as cabals, cliques, cadres.-- MONGO 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the arbitration committee has no authority to eliminate the potential for an article on encyclopedia drmatica if the community decides that there are suffcient reliable sources to be able to write a NPOV article on that subject. But I do want to reclarify that it sure is odd that anyone would be so concerned about this matter when we still lack potentially millions of articles on subjects as benign as butterflies, birds and plants.-- MONGO 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dtobias

The ill-conceived original MONGO decision was an unwarranted attempt on the part of ArbCom to make policy, and has been continually cited ever since by a small clique that is intent on imposing censorship of links that hurt their feelings. This BADSITES concept, a really bad idea, has been resoundingly rejected by the community as a whole every time it has come up. It's time to drive a stake through its heart once and for all. *Dan T.* ( talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we don't let millions of Muslims offended by our images of Mohammed sway our editorial decisions, but we do let the offense of a handful of Wikipedians against ED influence us, says loads about our screwy priorities. *Dan T.* ( talk) 13:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some inquiry into the actions of User:Sceptre would seem to be warranted; he attempted to intimidate the editor who proposed deletion review of ED by referring repeatedly to earlier people who did a similar thing getting banned, and also censored the discussion using a highly expansionist interpretation of the past ArbCom ruling whereby even links to the Alexa rankings of ED were considered illegal. His actions present a poster child for why the ArbCom ruling was a bad idea and ought to be overturned. *Dan T.* ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny and predictable that, rather than respond in a rational manner to my comments, MONGO instead engages in ad-hominem attacks at me. *Dan T.* ( talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another response to MONGO: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument in debates about creating or deleting articles. *Dan T.* ( talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

I note that the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica recently closed as "keep deleted", which is a fair enough close. I did notice one further edit, possibly as a result of this, or maybe not. Would the arbitration committee be able to comment on whether "recreation of the article" covers Encyclopedia Dramatica being mentioned at all in Wikipedia articles? ie. either in passing in other articles, or as a paragraph about the website, or as a section or entry in a list article? I raised this possibility at the DRV, but it didn't generate much discussion (possibly I arrived at the DRV too late for many people to even read what I posted there). I noted there that a sentence mentioning Encyclopedia Dramatica had existed at Criticism of Wikipedia#Humorous criticism for at least 5.5 months with seemingly no objections. Shortly after the deletion review finished, an IP editor removed the sentence in question from the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article. I have raised the issue at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Satire sentence removed. My question is, since that was to my knowledge the only reference in any Wikipedia article to Encyclopedia Dramatica, are we trying to remove any and all references to Encyclopedia Dramatica from all articles? If not, then are editors free to add "subarticle" level of material on Encyclopedia Dramatica to other Wikipedia articles where relevant? Carcharoth ( talk) 09:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question has now been reverted. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• " MONGO" (Oct 2006) and its more measured sister case a year later, " attack sites" (Oct 2007), were cases held at a time of high pressure. Shortly after the 'attack sites' case, the matter was in fact resolved not by huge edits and new policies, but by a few simple edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and a backup page explaining offsite attack links. MONGO is still cited these days as a base case on some issues, so it's worthwhile for that reason too -- especially as a significant number of users feel that it is now an arbcom-imposed 'blocker' for a possibly valid article, for reasons decided in the context of a heated dispute around 18 months ago. The community has broadly appeared to mature and deal with the issue, but these two cases are still cited and occasionally lead to problems and conflicts in the editorial process. Decisions drafted at heated times, especially very influential decisions, are often targeted to deal with the present issue and may well benefit from review, to consider whether they are still the best for us. Now its calmer, its sensible to have a second look at their long term results and double-check if those're the best we have. Without prejudice as to outcome, I'd agree that it may be useful to have a review by the Committee to consider these in the light of 2008. We probably could usefully do so. Accept. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. The Arbitration Committee should not permanently make a content ruling, if at all. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That too. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Accept. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments:

As noted above, a deletion review of Encyclopaedia Dramatica ("ED") is taking place—DRV being the appropriate forum because permission is being sought to re-create an article on a previously deleted topic. In the discussion so far, the majority view appears to be that ED is of borderline notability in terms of warranting a Wikipedia article, meaning that is within a reasonable discretionary range whether to have an article on it or not. In that context, in my DRV comment I made what I thought was a commonplace observation noting that ED's content includes material intentionally targeted at harassing and causing emotional distress to Wikipedia contributors. For example, because I once intervened as an administrator in an attempt to stop what I perceived as on-wiki harassment of an editor who was a minor, an ED article now lists me among Wikipedians who should be "rounded up and gassed like Jews." The Wikipedia community could quite reasonably determine that this type of material on a borderline-notable website disqualifies it from entitlement to a Wikipedia article publicizing such material or from any other form of our further attention. However, to the extent I expressed this opinion on the DRV, I did so as an individual editor, not as an administrator and certainly not as an arbitrator.

Mackensen appears to be concerned that this committee's unanimous decision barring links to ED in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, followed by the more splintered decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, are being read by some as a prohibition against re-creating an article on ED regardless of the outcome of the DRV. Although this frankly would not be a heartbreaking result, I can understand the view that even so extreme a situation as gave rise to the committee's MONGO decision in the first place (it was written for a reason) should yield to the longstanding rule that the Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions.

Three of my colleagues above have voted to "accept" this matter for a review. Normally, requests for clarification are the subject of either arbitrator comments or a motion, not of "acceptance" or "rejection." In the two instances in which a case was formally accepted for review, a case page was created for statements and evidence, the review case stayed open for a number of weeks, and a new decision containing a full set of principles, findings, and remedies was handed down. That procedure would seem to be overkill in the context of the particular issue raised, would probably create a spate of Arbitratia Dramatica, and would threaten to consume a substantial amount of the community's and the committee's time and attention, at a time when the committee is behind schedule in dealing with several of our pending cases despite a historically low caseload.

Moreover, if, as my colleague FT2 suggests above, the issues underlying the Attack sites case have largely been resolved by the community, it would be grossly counterproductive to reopen the matter at the ArbCom level, particularly given that the main remedy in the Attack sites decision was a referral of the policy issues to the community in the first place.

Under the circumstances, the best way to deal with the request for clarification is probably to have an up-or-down vote on the principal concern expressed. Accordingly, I offer (but will abstain from voting on) the motion below. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be better conceptually, rather than a ruling that says "don't link to ED" and another that says "you can create an article though", to modify those decisions to refer to the class of links that are problematic, and the class of sites ED is in, and how they should be handled? It is possible to say "creating an article on ED is allowed without using any source on ED", but it might be nicer (and more productive) to handle it like this:

1. Give a clear definition of the way to gauge if a link is an "attack link" problem, and then clarify those links fall under WP:NPA,
2. Clarify that in referencing sites known for carrying attacks and outings, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a different location, and provide that consensus (not "attack site/BLP" revert wars and fighting) are looked to, if there is uncertainty, and
3. Update references in "MONGO" to these more useful concepts.

This conceptually covers not just ED, but all such cases in future. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 03:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is abstaining), so 7 votes are a majority.

Motion 1 - It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):

The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.

passed at 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC), will be enacted in 24 hours unless the voting changes. Thatcher 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support:

1. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that permitting creation of a specific article on ED, and the suggestions below, are mutually compatible if needed.)
2. Paul August ☎ 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. For the purposes of clarification of the previous decision. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support with the understanding that "this motion" will be re-visited if needed. My main concern comes from the past practice of keeping low quality content on site if there is not a consensus to remove vs. requiring a consensus to keep the low quality content. When closing Afds and DRVs, the Community is moving away from this practice especially if there are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy concerns. This more recent practice is a reasonable approach to resolving user concerns that once low quality articles are added that it must remain on site in anticipation that it will eventually bloom into a well balanced good quality article. If needed I think that the Committee should endorse this practice in a ruling. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article, if ever re-created in a low quality state, might be an good example of why this is not a good idea. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
6. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
7. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Shouldn't need saying. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Definitely. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Proposed per above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I dislike aspects of the wording on this but agree that the committee should get out of the business of allowing or disallowing articles on particular topics.

Motion 2 - Linking if article recreated

If an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica is recreated, then editors may link to or quote that site for that article only, and only so far as is necessary to present high quality encyclopedic coverage whose citing is not possible from independent reliable sources. Questionable quotations and links may be removed by any user without regard to 3RR, pending discussion.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) If recreation is allowed, then guidance on linking is needed, else we will surely have an immediate clarification request. Proposed guidance can be summed up as, "only if you really have to, and only on that article (and pertaining to it)". The "removal" clause is out of respect for the concerns of those who, if it is recreated, will have strong reservations about abuse.

Oppose:

1. This would be fair as applied to most sites discussed in the "Attack pages" case or any similar site, but I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. The points made about linking in the Attack sites case remain pertinent here; I see no reason to carve out exceptions for specific sites at this point. Kirill 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
5. This would lead to confusion beyond necessity. On balance, I don't think this would improve the project. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct
7. If it is recreated then linking should follow the regular standards and it is always better avoiding exceptions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would prefer to decide whether to cross this bridge when we come to it, in other words when it is agreed that there can be an article on ED. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Motion 3 - Attack links

Links to media and other non-wiki pages, and external web pages, may be described as "attack links" if it is likely that a user following them would be exposed to material that is a clear personal attack or "outing" on themselves or other specific user(s). It is irrelevant whether the attack is explicit or subtle, or in what format it may be. In judging whether a link is an 'attack link', or judging 'likelihood' for a website, attention should be paid to the size and nature of the site, the location linked within it, the focus and usefulness of material found there, and the likely intentions of the poster, and 'attacks' are to be carefully distinguished from mere 'criticisms'. A link may be an attack link in one context and not in another, and may need removal even if not deliberately posted as a means of personal attack.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. Compare MONGO 11: A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ("an attack site/link is one with these characteristics, and these norms apply"). FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2. I see no need to dig up Attack sites at this point; the present matter shows that the community is able to deal with it as a matter of course, if nothing else. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. This is an attempt to revive 'Attack sites' which was rejected by the community. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Charles, Flo. The community either has no real appetite for this policy, or insufficient cohension to push it through, as per the previous cases. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) History has shown that it will not help matters for us to preach on this.
7. There are still options for the community to handle this itself. It is not a necessity. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Motion 4 - Sourcing from websites known to carry material pejorative to users

In referencing sites known for carrying attack or "outing" material against users, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a better location. Any user may replace such a link by another link serving the same purpose, from a less contentious website, or removing it (with posters agreement if possible) if it is not needed for a legitimate communal process. Links that have both valid concerns and also possible value, may need consensus-seeking to determine whether they have enough value to override the possible concerns.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. This is a more useful and usable reworking of the aim of the MONGO restrictions on certain sites. It does not introduce any contentious new policy, but does well address the situation and similar situations that MONGO tried to address on ED. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Paul August ☎ 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Per Brad.
3. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Same issue as motion 3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Per my thoughts on 3. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Per my comments on 3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Motion 5 - Amendment to past cases

In the case "Mongo", principles 3 and 7 shall be reworded to refer to "attack links", remedy 1 shall be reworded to refer to "links that the community determines are attack links may be removed" (etc.), and enforcement 1 shall refer to "attack links" and the reference to imported material and recording of blocks struck out.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2. To go with opposition to motions 3 and 4. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Let sleeping dogs lie. Past principles have no value for precedent or policy. They had the purpose of explaining how a decision was made. If the decision was wrong, we should be considering that for review, not undermining it in this fashion. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. per Charles Matthews. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Charles. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would prefer a simple statement that a policy adopted by consensus of the community supersedes the MONGO and Attack sites cases, if that is what it is sought to accomplish here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   The bulk of MONGO and Attack sites is sound and we probably don't wish to weaken or upturn them. But these specific items are outdated, and 18 months on hinder rather than help. Withdrawing them will be useful. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)